Poll: Voters want a primary challenge for Clinton

[LiberalElite]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/16/hillary-clinton-needs-primary-challenger-democrati/


Democratic voters appear ready to get behind the would-be presidential campaign of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — but they also want to see an active primary challenge for Mrs. Clinton, a new poll said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/16/hillary-clinton-needs-primary-challenger-democrati/#ixzz3M9sFeRSX
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[vi5]

1. No, that is clearly wrong.

Last edited Wed Dec 17, 2014, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

I've read on here that 235% of Democrats want her for president. And those people clearly have no agenda or reason to pick and choose their polls.

Just get on board.

Edited to add:

[leftofcool]

2. Link to thread that says 235% of Dems want Hillary?

I am a Hillary supporter who does want a primary and I have never read that 235% of Dems are Hillary supporters. I have seen polls that suggests she beats all potential GOP candidates by almost double digits.

[vi5]

3. It was sarcasm

You do realize that 235% in the case of polling cannot be an actual number, right?

[leftofcool]

4. And yet you felt you had to follow it up with a slam against Hillary supporters.

[vi5]

5. The sarcasm was a knock at their inevitability claims, yes.

I don't think I tried to disguise that.

[rock]

6. The rule and it's been stated before on DU

Is use the SARCASM tag if it's sarcasm. Many people say outrageous, ludicrous things and mean them. (not sarcasm) --> Perhaps over 235% of the posters on DU! <-- see

[vi5]

7. Really?

O.K. if I need a sarcasm tag, when referrring to 235% of any group of people, then this place has truly gone through the looking glass.

The number in the context that I used it is a literal impossibility (cue the voter fraud conspiracists... ).

But in any case....I fixed it.

[rock]

8. You mean you honestly

have never heard a sports coach say, "Give it 110%?" Now it's my turn, "Really?"

[vi5]

10. And in that context it is feasible.

In this context, without voter fraud it is not.

You really are only proving my point about the absurdity of this whole situation.

[rock]

11. I do see your point

This is the moderators rules though. I don't agree with a lot of stuff they enforce, but we are stuck with it. To play the devil's advocate a bit more: one cannot tell tone in a post, so you have to explicitly indicate it. Stupid I know and I've been caught assuming everyone could tell I was being sarcastic fer gawds sakes!

[Scuba]

9. +1

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. You made a valid point, accept your win gracefully ;~)

[Cosmic Kitten]

13. Every party needs a "primary challenge"!

It's bizarre that a "journalist" or "media outlet"
needs to make that NEWS, pfft.
When a party DOESN"T have a primary...that will be news

Polls are relative meaningless except to create
the public illusion of certainty or "authority".
Asking 1000 people what they think and then "weighting"
the results says little about reality.
But it CAN persuade people HOW to think about a topic.

So maybe it's propaganda?
Maybe The Washington Times needs or wants
to stir the pot? To what end?

[sabrina 1]

14. Which voters? I doubt Republicans are going to vote for her no matter how much of

War Hawk she is.

Independents are not likely either. And half the Dem voters want someone else.

I guess those polls are based on registered Dems which at this point makes up only 32% of the population.

[whereisjustice]

15. How exciting, Bush vs. Clinton, two entitled douchebags fighting to represent the rich in America.